Raul Gonzalez Vargas; Graciela M. Gonzalez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL GONZALEZ VARGAS;
GRACIELA M. GONZALEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70115
Agency Nos. A075-260-204
A075-260-205
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Raul Gonzalez Vargas and Graciela M. Gonzalez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s order pretermitting their applications for
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing
FILED
JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70115 2
for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination,
Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850 (9th Cir. 2004), we deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Gonzalez Vargas met his
burden to establish continuous physical presence where he provided insufficient
evidence of his presence from April 1988 onwards. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183
F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (a contrary result is not compelled where there is
“[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --